When Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych was ousted over a helmet featuring athletes killed in Russia’s invasion forty-five minutes before his competition and just about one week into the Games, it was not the only reminder in Milano Cortina that the Olympics do not unfold in a political vacuum. Anti-ICE protests, Russian athletes again competing as “AIN” (Individual Neutral Athletes), and the absence of Palestinian sportsmen demonstrate the geopolitical tensions in the world order that cannot be separated from the Games. The goal of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is “promot[ing] political neutrality,” which unifies the world through sport, yet its enforcement of neutrality rules, treatment of certain nations, and historical precedents draw a divergent narrative that the Games consistently reflect and reproduce global power hierarchies rather than break past them.
Rule 50 of the Olympic charter is the central argument against political expression and intervention in the games, but it is often seen to be implemented as a double standard against weak states and in favor of the most powerful nations. The rule was introduced in 1975 and specifically states that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” This specifically means that there cannot be any demonstrations during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, in the Olympic Village, on the field of play during competition, and on the medal podiums. The historical motivation behind this rule was the raised fists of U.S. sprinters at the podium in the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, meant to bring the world’s attention to the systemic violence against Black people in America. The restrictions were loosened before the 2021 Tokyo Olympics in the wake of social justice dominating the media, namely the Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S.
The intended purpose of Rule 50 is to maintain the focus on athletic merit and international harmony. The expulsion of Heraskevych, along with Russian and Belarusian athletes being forced to compete without their flag as “AIN,” is all done to promote a fair implementation of Rule 50. The flaws of the rule exist in its selective enforcement and the structure of the Games themselves that promote nationalism rather than the international community. Receiving the AIN designation as a Russian athlete has meant facing intense screening to prove no support for the war and no military ties. Meanwhile, Israeli athletes do not face the same restrictions and are allowed to compete under Israel’s national flag despite the country’s invasion of Gaza and the military mandate in the country, which directly ties these athletes to the conflict. The specific reasoning presented by the IOC has been that while Russia took over Ukraine’s NOCs (National Olympic Committees), Palestine’s NOC is centered in the West Bank, meaning it has remained fully functioning and protected. This specification creates a false narrative that the Games are not affected by the political landscape in other ways, like allowing states to represent their legitimacy and power in an event of cultural exchange. These examples reveal a greater inconsistency where the Olympic Games hope to focus on the merit of athletes, but punish athletes for what their state has done, rather than allowing them to exist independently. The centering of state action rather than the individuals competing signifies that the Olympic structure, which honors national flags, medal counts, and anthems, promotes nationalism and is a cultural show of soft power rather than a display of harmony or sport.
These are the first Winter Olympics where Russian and Belarusian athletes are banned from competing under national symbols after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. During the time of the USSR and after, the Olympics were a way for nations to show dominance on an international level, which developed the image of these states beyond ideology. This idea of utilizing sport to divert the focus away from poor governance and human rights concerns is coined as sportswashing. A key example of sportswashing would be the World Cup being held in Saudi Arabia in 2034 despite its history of repression. After the USSR’s dissolution into 15 independent states in 1991, Putin specifically would use sport to promote claims of Russia’s modernity and capability through hosting events like the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi or the 2018 FIFA World Cup. By connecting athletic achievement to the resurgence of Russia and legitimacy, the Kremlin obscured the difference between individual competitors and political power. Now with the AIN distinction, athletes face international scrutiny, as their participation is often seen as a concession rather than the honoring of athletic greatness it is meant to be. Domestically, however, they are largely celebrated and supported, which shows the contrast between global perceptions of sport.
Controversially, Israel has been allowed full participation in all recent games, which has led to questions over the asymmetry of enforcement, as many believe their invasion of Gaza should equate to similar grounds for removal as Russia. Although the IOC promotes non-discrimination and equality among nations, Palestine lacks comparable infrastructure and recognition due to Israel’s actions. Palestine has never competed in the Winter Olympics, a disparity that highlights how access to international sports is not only affected by athletic development but also by political and structural factors. During the war in Gaza, multiple sporting facilities and stadiums were damaged or destroyed, which has limited athletes’ ability to train or compete and also hindered the country’s ability to develop new winter sports infrastructure. The United States has also faced controversy abroad over reports that agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be involved in security connected to the Games, which has drawn protests. These dynamics complicate the story of the IOC’s neutrality and suggest that both participation and restriction reflect existing global hierarchies rather than creating a universally applied standard.
Although it seems like the Games of this year are the most politically charged, the intersection between global events and the Olympics has always been a contentious topic. In 1936, the Summer Games were held in Berlin and hosted by Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler attempted to promote propaganda of the superiority of the Aryan race, but this largely failed as the most recognized athlete was Jesse Owens, an African American sprinter who won gold in four different events. The Nazi party softened their antisemitism to instead project their legitimacy and hoped their ideals would naturally be shown through the results of the Games. International participation in the games further legitimized the regime, which entrenches the notion that the Olympics are a show of competence and prestige for the host country. The controversy of the 1936 Olympics also resurfaced this year as Milano Cortina chose to sell merchandise from designs that were created during Hitler’s propaganda rampage.
Even after the enactment of Rule 50, the Olympics have been fused with geopolitics. In 1976, when the Olympics were in Montreal, about 22 countries boycotted to protest the tour of New Zealand’s rugby team through apartheid South Africa. The 1980 Moscow Olympics led to over 60 nations boycotting because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to a retaliation by the Eastern Bloc in 1984. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 had a disruption of the torch lighting in protest of the growing awareness towards China’s human rights abuses and suppression of Tibetan protests. Rule 50 has never been precisely enacted, and these various examples serve to highlight this disparity. Rather than being games of athletic competition, the Olympics are driven by global diplomacy, foreign policy leverage, and soft power.The 2026 Olympics do not represent a break from tradition but instead continue a long-standing pattern of power politics in global sport. The IOC reflects the world order in the countries it allows to compete, and those that are pushed to the sidelines. The mission “to maintain and promote its political neutrality and to preserve the autonomy of sport” goes largely unfulfilled. If even the Olympics, an event explicitly designed to unify nations, cannot escape the tumultuous geopolitical climate, then likely neutrality has always been an illusion rather than a reality.
Featured Image Source: Council on Foreign Relations